Monthly Archives: January 2015

Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

Robespierre’s Cult of the Supreme Being was a form of Deism intended to replace Christianity as the national religion of France. It emphasized the existence of a single god, the immortality of the human soul, and placed considerable weight on natural observation and reason. Though somewhat consistent with Christian principles, these beliefs were aimed to promote public well being, rather than the well being of the church.

The Cult of the Supreme Being was designed to adapt the belief in god to the Enlightenment. Robespierre wanted to find a middle ground between devout Christianity and Atheism. He denounced complete de-Christianization, which sought to completely rid France of the religion, but also condemned the church and king for disfiguring “Divinity by superstition,” and associating “it with their crimes.”

Robespierre argued that the Christian Church had become corrupt, and that Christianity had become a way for the Clergy steal money from the Third Estate, and an excuse for the Nobility retain power. He Stated that God “did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood,” rather “he created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue.” Robespierre saw the Cult of the Supreme Being as the way to reach this mutual happiness.

The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

One of the main factors contributing to the French Revolution was an intensifying contempt for the relationship between the Catholic church and the State. Robespierre alludes to this dissatisfaction in his writing saying, “He did not create priests to harness us … to the chariots of kings”. Robespierre was one of the most influential figures in the French Revolution, but rather than lead a charge against the Church and religion like some of his revolutionary peers, he is able to rally a cause for revolution fueled by new, but fervent religious grounds. The Cult of the Supreme Being calls asserts the existence of benevolent and divine being, “who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice.” It is He who provides the revolutionists with the strength and purpose for their cause Robespierre asserts. Robespierre’s call to action is one based on religious service and natural rights: “Our blood flows for the cause of humanity. Behold our prayer. Behold our sacrifices. Behold the worship we offer Thee.”

Again, this call to sacred action appears in La Marseillaise, which claims a “Sacred love of the fatherland” will guide the revolution to victory over the “impure blood” of their enemies.

From these two readings, it becomes visible just how much the French Revolution is changing perceptions of religion and the people’s place in the State.

Abdication of Nikolai II

Posted on by

By 1917, Russia’s populace faced a combination of very severe acute food shortages caused by the unorganized and uncontrolled war effort, and social disorder subsequent of several Liberal and revolutionary groups split in their ideas and desires but all dissatisfied with the minimal (or even lack of) reform afforded to them by the Dumas. Nikolai was therefore advised to abdicate, whereupon he drew up a manifesto abdicating his position and naming his brother, Grand Duke Michael, as the next Emperor. Nikolai had not genuinely tried to make any reforms to advance the lives of the general public, with the justification that he did not fathom the outlook or everyday condition of the people and consequently resorted to the Russo-Japanese War and the publication of the October Manifesto as endeavors to maintain the people’s allegiance to him and the autocracy. From Nikolai’s contracted abdication document we are able to see that even at the culmination of the Romanov dynasty, Nikolai had an idealistically optimistic vision of the future. He wrote in his abdication letter, “We call upon all faithful sons of our native land to fulfill their sacred and patriotic duty of obeying the Tsar… and to aid them, together with the representatives of the nation, to conduct the Russian State in the way of prosperity and glory.” This primary source is further evidence that Nikolai did not have a complete awareness of what the underlying problem was and what had gone wrong – the state was not only in chaos because of World War I but a massive social revolution was breaking out. The legislative institution had broken away from the government, more revolutionary tensions and activisms were arising, and the crushed army was motivated by the peasants’ aspiration to obtain land. In a time of anarchy within his State, Nikolai was speaking of an “organized” and “victorious conclusion” of the war. Nikolai’s inability to make decisions is also reflected by carefully worded explanation for not handing his “heritage” to his son (as he had in first abdication letter favored of his hemophilic son Alexei for the “Throne of the Russian State,” over his brother).

Life beyond the Liberal Arts Degree

Posted on by

Life beyond the Liberal Arts Degree

Grafton and Grossman highlight that today many do question the value of a liberal arts education. Realistically we all know that the economic situation today is quite different than it was even a generation ago. Despite the ever changing job market, the level of skills, imparted to students within the humanities, enables them to remain competitive. Attaining a job today takes more than just a degree, it takes having connections and the ability to think critically about the best way to use these connections to your advantage. When you receive your degree from Dickinson, you have the backing of other alumni who are prepared to network and possibly open doors that would not be available to you on your own. They do this because they realize that you have benefited from the same high standards of academic integrity that they themselves received. Years of studying, researching, and analyzing topics have made you a critical thinker with the ability to think outside of the box. This happens to be an essential quality for any profession, imparting far more on you than just a piece of paper. This piece of paper stating your degree from your beloved college is the first step to getting an interview for your potential first job. The incite gained because of that piece of paper walks with you for your entire life because you have been trained to communicate not just what you desire to undertake today, but what you know you will be able to accomplish through strategies and discovering solutions to tomorrow’s problems.

The Importance of Historical Thinking

Posted on by

In the article “Habits of Mind” authors Anthony Grafton and James Grossman advocate for the usefulness of historical training in a time where many humanists struggle to communicate well and are forced into specialization.[1] With many humanists using illogical narratives and unclear communication, Grafton and Grossman emphasize that the methods of communication and questioning historians use are important.[2] Historians learn to ask critical questions, research diverse topics, and communicate their arguments in a clear fashion.[3] Also, historians who research in archives are able to connect the significance of events from the past to the present.[4] Research in archives gives historians the opportunity to relate events and values from the past to themselves and their lifestyle in the present.[5] Grafton and Grossman stress that students who do archival work learn to construct strong historical arguments and strive to convey their work in a clear and strong way.[6] Also, research gives historians the ability to form their own original narratives.[7]

 

Anthony Grafton and James Grossman stress that the success of historians is found in their ability to communicate clearly and critically think.[8] They write that the value of historical training is not necessarily what knowledge one learns throughout their education, but their ability to analyze information at a deep level and communicate their thoughts in a persuasive and clear method. The educational tools a historian learns transcend into other fields of study because they help scholars develop a strong argument, hypotheses, or theory. Historical methods encourage people to question ideas and make connections between events, people, and beliefs. Does the value of studying history lie more in the pursuit of knowledge or in the knowledge itself?

[1] Grafton and Grossman, “Habits of Mind,” December, 10, 2014

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid.

History and Research

Posted on by

When doing research, especially with primary sources, I always get enthralled with the source I am reading.  I always try to understand the situation of the author/ creator and I put myself into his/her shoes.  This type of thinking, admittedly, is not appealing to many.  Far too many individuals have little interest or time to be concerned with history and what it means for the future.  Some find it frivolous and inefficient to finance this style of research; however, it is as important as any other discipline.

Historical research not only gives the reader interesting information, it gives him/her the tools and content to use this newly found information and tell others about it.  With the “nature of archives [varying] as widely as the world itself”, it is impossible to find nothing of value or intrigue.  Educating the populous about their own history is by far the best way to not repeat it.   Whether it’s local or international history, the populous can always learn from the mistakes and successes from our predecessors. From business strategies to engineering techniques, every facet of history, brought about by research, can help the modern world.  It is up to historians to bring forward this information to be made available to all.  It is also up to historical researchers to create the standard for intellectual thinking in history.

((Grafton, Anthony and Grossman, James “Habits of Mind: Why college students who do serious historical research become independent, analytical thinkers.” The American Scholar Winter 2015. ))

Supreme Being and La Marseillaise: culture of Franch Revolution

Posted on by

La Marseillaise

As the represent of liberaty, La Marseillaise has been widely spread. It’s sentence reflected the people’s emotion in the early Revolutionary period. This song is full of desire to fight against the monarchy. “Our day of Glory has arrived. Against us stands tyranny, The bloody flag is raised, The bloody flag is raised.(first paragraph 2-4 sentences)” and “To arms, citizens!Form up your battalions  Let us march, Let us march!(second paragraph 1-3 sentences)” Those aggressive and blood burning words reflected the writer’s willing to fight with the tyranny until the end- without the fear of bleeding. For this song be widely accepted since it born, it seems in the late 18th century, the Franch society is well perpared for the revolution, people could not tolerate the ruling from the noblity one more seconds. Also, La Marseillaise shows a direct hatred towards the monarch. “They come right into our arms To cut the throats of your sons, your country. (first paragraph sentences 8-10)” and “That their impure blood
Should water our fields(second paragraph sentences 4-5)” —No mercy, only blood can quiet down people’s anger. That might link with the following Jacobins’ terror period: too much people immersed in blood.

The Cult of Supreme Being

The Cult of Supreme Being seems is the effort of Jacobins to deny the old validity of monarch to rule in Catholicism. “Is it not He whose immortal hand, engraving on the heart of man the code of justice and equality, has written there the death sentence of tyrants? Is it not He who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice? (6th paragraph)” They linked liberty and justice with religious, to show the people their validity of the revolution and to kill the monarch. “He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood. He created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue.(7th paragraph) ” and denied the rights of noblity and kings to rule. It also showed some ideas from enlightenment as help each other, to love each other. However, perhaps it seems to radical as other policies from Jacobins, France has been influenced by Catholicism over a thousand of years and it’s hard to deny it totally. The Cult of Supreme Being didn’t left too much influence to France for today we even didn’t know it unless by history materials.

Conclusion

La Marseillaise and The Cult of Supreme Being all reflected the culture during Franch revolution: radical, no compromise, overturn everything left before. They showed the great spirit of Franch people to fight against monarchy both in physical and mental but also indicated that the atmosphere of revolution is too radical and caused too much unnecessary bleeding.

 

A Liberal Art Education

Posted on by

Walk into any Starbucks across the country, and you will encounter a highly educated college graduate whose degree in interpretative dance, Zulu, or what-have-you seems to translate into immediate hiring at any coffee shop, effective immediately after graduation. Unfortunately for millions of college students, a bachelors degree no longer guarantees a high paying position. Instead, highly intelligent graduates are stuck working multiple jobs as baristas and busboys in a never-ending race to pay back insurmountable student loans. It is not enough to simply graduate with a degree; instead, students need to be able to think, to question, to innovate, and do so better and more uniquely than any of their similarly educated peers. In other words, an impossible task. A critic of the current higher education system, William Deresiewicz, laments recent graduates’ inability to connect with the common man, and failure to gain a comprehensive understanding of the world. He claims students know “more and more about less and less,” decreasing their employability. ((Deresiewicz, William in “Habits of Mind: Why college students who do serious historical research become independent, analytical thinkers.” The American Scholar Winter 2015.)) However, the authors of “Habits of Mind,” Anthony Grafton and James Grossman, suggest students should be highly specialized, in order to switch from a “passive observer” to a “creator” and to become an independent, self-reliant thinker ((Grafton, Anthony and James Grossman. “Habits of Mind: Why college students who do serious historical research become independent, analytical thinkers.” The American Scholar Winter 2015.)). But liberal arts schools combine both views. Students are well-rounded and well-informed, while still specializing in an area that teaches them the skills that Grafton and Grossman revere; they possess the ability to hold conversations with plumbers and with highly educated colleagues in multiple languages. Grafton and Grossman seem to suggest that it is impossible to be both synoptic and analytic; however, every student that walks down the steps of Old West provide evidence to the contrary.

The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

During the initial stages of the French Revolution there was growing support for the separation of church and state. Many of the contributing members of society from all social strata (the Third Estate), ranging from peasants at the lower end to merchants at the top, began to reject the Catholic Church because it was perceived as a tool of repression and subjugation. Several of the revolution’s leaders initially tried to completely distance French society from any degree of religious inclination. These “radical” thinkers of the age garnered a large amount of support for a new doctrine called the Cult of Reason, which incorporated atheistic views centered on the guiding concept of reason to help guide society’s operation.

Although the Cult of Reason gained an initial foothold in French society, one of the very outspoken and influential leaders of the Committee of Public Safety, Maximilian Robespierre, did not agree with the godless aspect of this new ideological framework. He instead developed his own religious system called The Cult of the Supreme Being. This construct differed from the latter in that it contained elements of religion, deism in particular, and argued that civic virtue and respect for fellow man would aptly serve the all-powerful “creator.” In the document, The Cult of the Supreme Being, Robespierre wrote, “The Author of Nature has bound all mortals by a boundless chain of love and happiness. Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!” This quote demonstrates how Robespierre believed that humanity was designed to exist in a state of harmony and equilibrium, but certain evil individuals (tyrants) have polluted the system’s design by oppressing fellow men. Robespierre believed that it is the duty of all Frenchman to worship the Supreme Being by taking revolutionary actions to dethrone the tyrants, thus restoring the natural and intended state of nature that the Godhead had intended. He was able to justify revolutionary actions through this paradigm.

Question:

What do you believe are the pros and cons of a religious society?

La Marseillaise

Posted on by

The French Revolution is often considered one of the most important revolutions in world history, because it was one of the most violent and yet romanticized series of events, and one of the most influential and impacting revolutions in history. For many, it served as a cautionary tale of what could happen to a country or a state if class struggles and separation became too great. (In fact, the French Revolution later impacted Karl Marx’s views toward capitalism and elitism. He came to see it as a step towards a proletarian revolution and heading down the path he was thinking.) However, such a revolution would not have occurred had it not been for those who inspired it with their speeches, their songs, or their essays. A state of discontent or disapproval is not enough to get a revolution started, rather, someone needs to stir the proverbial pot and provide a rallying cry around the misfortune. It’s quite ironic that the composer of one of the most famous pieces of the French Revolution was a royalist, who wrote it while defending France against the Austrians.

<iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/4K1q9Ntcr5g” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g” title=”La%20Marseillaise,%20French%20National%20Anthem%20(Fr%2FEn)”]

((“La Marseillaise, French National Anthem (Fr/En),” YouTube video, 5:21, posted by “bursty13,” September 1,
2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g.))

La Marseillaise Sheet Music ((Rouget de Lisle, Claude Joseph. La Marseillaise. Retrieved from http://imslp.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise_%28Rouget_de_Lisle,_Claude-Joseph%29 ))

 

“La Marseillaise,” composed and written in April 1792 by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle (1760-1836), was quite the revolutionary piece of music. The song itself follows much like a march, and has an easy and catchy tune. The refrain of the piece, or the repeated part of music, has simple words and simple notes, and therefore makes it easy for everyone to sing, hum, or whisper along. Thus, it intrinsically represents one of the ideals presented by John Locke, and that many revolutionaries believed in – equal opportunity. More specifically, it presents the opportunity for everyone who wants to sing along to be able to sing along. The piece’s style, therefore, in itself makes it revolutionary.

Secondly, the lyrics make the song revolutionary as well. Often times, the lyrics express the need to defend the “fatherland” (verse one, line one) against the enemies “tyranny” (verse one, line three) and “savage soldiers” (verse one, line seven). The lyrics therefore express the unification of one group of people facing the oppression or aggression of another individual/group. Such a description also depicts what is considered to be a revolution. To be put simply, during the French Revolution, the suppressed impoverished and middle class unified to take on the oppression of royalty and nobility. Lastly, the second verse highlights the need for the defense of liberty and freedom, also a rallying cry of the French Revolution.

Lastly, the song generated lots of controversy in the years following the French Revolution due to its root history. Despite being declared France’s national anthem in the years following the Revolution, Napoleon I banned the piece soon after becoming ruler in France. Following this, the song underwent periods of being banned and legal for the next three quarters of a century. It appears that, for many, the piece’s revolutionary undertones were too much for the rulers that followed and as such, the piece consistently was controversial and under scrutiny. However, following its reinstatement as the national anthem in 1879, it has remained that way since then.

Possible Questions to Consider:

Do you agree with my argument that the song’s catchy nature makes it effective as a revolutionary song?

Why might a song be especially effective at transmitting attitudes and thoughts? Or rather, what might make a song more effective than an essay or a novel/book?

Are there any other famous revolutionary songs that you may be able to compare this one too?